And I'm saying that's unfortunate for you, because your hobby tends to be significantly more expensive than mine. Taking this to the extreme, imagine the people who are obsessed with cars; that's the sort of hobby one can easily spend 10,000-20,000/annum on. It's the sort of hobby that prevents most people from accruing significant savings throughout their entire life (obviously the extremely rich are exempt from most of these problems).
Do you not feel sorry for them? I do. It's a financially crippling addiction.
There is never a point where objective analysis is inappropriate -- only points where subjective views are. My posts in this thread, for example, are an attempt at objective analysis of the subjective preferences of GAF, and that should be a valuable, interesting addition to the conversation. Do you disagree with my analysis? If so, why? Provide evidence and logic to support your position.
Sounds like an essay question, haha.
An objective analysis of people's preferences (as well as failures to be efficient, money-wise) is absolutely fine. The question should be whether a person
cares, other than you, if what they get is efficient compared to the amount of hours they spend playing a game. This very conversation between you and I shows why your objective viewpoint doesn't matter, because I subjectively feel happier playing Mother 3 without multiplayer than with it.
Would you say paying $10 is too much for As I Lay Dying when It by Stephen King is $5? Clearly the latter spends more of your time, and is much longer to read. Objectively, this can be considered more cost-effective, but ultimately it should be looked at subjectively - one is most definitely considered more artistic and cultured than the other, sure, but AILD can also be a more interesting and fulfilling read to a person. He/she may spend less time reading it than It, but to that person AILD still provided them with a better experience and something to remember. The same scenario applies to a video game, and the cost-effectiveness doesn't matter when it comes to experience. You will see, empirically, that people do things that don't make sense objectively, but to them it matters an incredible amount.
This may result in what you call a financial addiction, but one again, it's the subjective that matters to each individual. We're all selfish in some way, and our hobbies only reflect this. I don't care whether or not I spend more money than you. Why should I? I'm not saying this discussion is without merit, but writing off single player games because of the rise of the multiplayer shouldn't result in the idea that single player games are automatically inefficient. It's the subjective experience, not the objective analysis of a cost-to-benefit ratio that determines the worth of something to a person.
